EU may force rival browsers on Windows
Summary
The European Union is considering forcing Microsoft to distribute rival browsers as part of Windows, the software maker disclosed in a regulatory filing.
Topics
The European Union is considering forcing Microsoft to distribute rival browsers as part of Windows, the software maker disclosed in a regulatory filing last week.
As part of its quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission filed on Thursday, the software maker offered more details on the EU's statement last week that it believes Microsoft's inclusion of a browser in Windows violates antitrust law.
Microsoft said that the EU is considering forcing computer makers, known as original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, to offer multiple browsers with new Windows PCs.
"While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any Web browsing software on Windows, the commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC," Microsoft said in the SEC filing. "Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser."
Microsoft also noted that the EU is also seeking to "impose a significant fine based on sales of Windows operating systems in the European Union."
The company reiterated that it will have the opportunity to respond in writing in the next two months and, after that, could also request a hearing.
And that's not the only area where Microsoft faces further EU action. Microsoft confirmed that an investigation into Office may still be ongoing.
"In January 2008, the commission opened an additional competition law investigation that relates primarily to interoperability with respect to our Microsoft Office family of products," Microsoft said. "This investigation resulted from complaints filed with the commission by a trade association of Microsoft's competitors."
Talkback Most Recent of 79 Talkback(s)
-
Noooooooo !
Get IE out of the OS, please for security sake !
Alan Smithie26th Jan 2009 -
Socialism at its best
First they dislike the fact that Windows has its own browser.
Second, they are now looking into forcing computer manufactures to install software the commission chooses, not the OEM.
Third, they will probally dislike the fact that Microsoft Office is so sucessful (above what their country members companies are producing) and will interfear in that respect, too (see number two, above)
Socialism at it's best, competition need not apply....
GuidingLight26th Jan 2009 -
First...
They don't like that Microsoft chose not to abide by the same rules as everyone else in the EC, so they rule against them. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Here's a clue. As long as Microsoft choose not to play by the rules they'll keep getting hammered by the courts.
Or is it that you think that because it's Microsoft they are "above the law?"
zkiwi26th Jan 2009 -
Don't bite on the trolls of ignorance
they've got more experience at being ignorant so they will drag you down to their level.
For them, opening up the market by leveling the playing field and competing on merit, is "socialism/communism" .... aahh bless, you have to be tolerent of the ignorant as they may eventually work it out.
deaf_e_kate26th Jan 2009 -
Let me tell you how to level the playing field
Build your own godd@mned OS and market that are as dominating then you don't need to force your way into SOMEONE ELSE's desktop. If you cannot, don't cry in front of Mom like a sissy.
LBiege26th Jan 2009 -
I couldn't agree more!
That's exactly what's happening.
khawaja.umar.farooq@...27th Jan 2009 -
Just try to remove IE from Windows. You can NOT ! That is
HIGHLY anti-competitive !
Being as Microsoft has been classed (repearedly) as a near monopoly, stricter rules apply. They DO !
hkommedal27th Jan 2009 -
let's make it even more fair
Let's demand that Apple provide syncing software with all mp3 players, not just iPods. It's only leveling the playing field so that other mp3 players can compete, right? I should be able to use iTunes with my Zune and my Samsung players.
OR we can make them allow iPod syncing with any media manager, like Windows Media Player, Zune software, MediaMonkey, or Songbird, or any other. That would level the playing field.
After all, Apple's monopoly on mp3 players is about as large as Microsoft's on operating systems.
"Leveling the playing field" is a classic phrase used to artificially prop up competition by bringing down the top competitor. I don't care if that can be termed "socialism" or not, but it sure is BS.
If you installed Flash on your browser, then found that Silverlight was also installed in the effort at "fairness", is that right?
Who decides what's fair? Which browsers? Which companies? No chance of corruption at that level of government interference, right?
What we should be hoping for is a level STARTING field, which everyone has. Let Apple dominate the mp3 market, they deserve to. And as long as Microsoft isn't (through code) forcing other browsers off their system, let them dominate the PC market.
coffeeshark26th Jan 2009 -
Level Playing Field?
As a maker of the Windows product, I think it is up to Microsoft to decide what they want to include with it, be it a web-browser, or a media player, or indeed, an office-productivity suite, if they choose to do so.
Many Unix distributions already distribute all kinds of software that are not a part of the operating system in anyway.
Why don't the courts mandate free-software and open-software foundations to up their game in the desktop usability area so that users have more viable alternatives to the Microsoft family of products?
Why don't they tell makers of other browsers to get into the operating system business?
Why don't they tell Apple to enable installation of MacOS X onto plain x86 machines? Technically, this should now be easily possible.
Why don't they tell Google to make their version of Gentoo available to consumers?
The courts should not be telling who can sell what and for how much and in what combination. It is up to Microsoft's competitors to come up with a product line that entices customers away from Microsoft's products.
To my mind, forcing Microsoft to distribute 5 different browsers with each copy of Windows just increases the clutter of applications, it doesn't improve anything. Anybody who really doesn't want to use IE or FF or Safari can do so on their own.
Besides, who gets to decide which browsers get to be distributed with Windows? What about the browsers which don't get distributed? Wouldn't it be unfair on them? Where do we draw the line?
Before you say market share will dictate that choice, bear in mind that every browser had 0% market share at the start of it's life and had to claw it's way up to market significance. There is no fair way to decide this list of browsers to be distributed with Windows.
The only fair way to choose this list is to let Microsoft choose, since Windows is their product. I believe they are already distributing the browser of their choice, i.e., IE.khawaja.umar.farooq@...27th Jan 2009 -
hkommedal27th Jan 2009
-
The rules?
Well, first of all, Microsoft isn't a European company. Normally, their rules are from the USA.
Second, international "laws" are a mess. Even worse, these international entities that create "laws" aren't democracies. I didn't vote for representatives in the UN, and it sounds like the EU is the same way (although correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not in a member nation of the EU).
Keeping all of the laws straight and trying to "keep" all of them with the number of countries and international entities is practically an exercise in futility. I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't given up and simply stopped selling to a lot of these places.
CobraA126th Jan 2009 -
You didn't vote for president either
Yet we still call the USA a democracy.
Assuming you are a registered American voter, you voted for your state's electors in the electoral college, who then selected a president, who in turn selected a representative to the UN. That's about as democratic as we get in this world.
Michael Kelly26th Jan 2009 -
re: You didn't vote for president either
Yes, technically it's an electoral college system - but still a bit more direct than the UN representative.
At least I got a sheet of paper allowing me to select which president I'd prefer. I don't even get that with the UN. No, it's not as "democratic as we get."
Quite frankly, that structure is upside down - the more power something has, the more direct the elections should be. Something which has power over nations should have more direct elections, not less direct via appointment.
But in any case - we are talking about the EU, and Microsoft is a US company, and we're not part of the EU. So there are bound to be legal issues. Microsoft now has to pour resources into making Windows comply with EU's "laws."CobraA126th Jan 2009 -
Complying with other countries laws has always...
...been a business reality. This is nothing unique to Microsoft.
ye26th Jan 2009 -
Microsoft now has to pour resources into making Windows...
...comply with EU's "laws."
Laws which most likely didn't exist when Windows and IE were first started being bundled...
PollyProteus27th Jan 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
